Friday, October 28, 2016
Thursday, October 27, 2016
The Need For Discernment Has Never Been Greater, Jen Hatmaker Edition
Being discerning has always been a critical aspect of the Christian life of a disciple. We have warnings to that effect all throughout the New Testament but it today's world the need is as urgent as it has ever been. Case in point, a recent interview with Jen Hatmaker who is a fairly famous religious author. I haven't read any of her stuff, probably not too shocking a revelation, but I did see an interview with her linked by Tim Challies. Published by Religion News Service the interview is a trainwreck. I am sure others have already responded but given how famous she is and how many unsuspecting Christians read her books uncritically, I think it is important to point out the many fallacies and outright errors she manages to pack into a brief interview. Here are some of the more egregious examples:
Who do you plan to vote for?
My initial thought is vote for whoever is not Donald Trump and can win. It’s interesting, though, to watch Evan McMullin rise up right now as a conservative candidate, and I’m paying attention to that. I like him. I think he’s got a lot of integrity, and I like his policies.
What about Hillary? Would you be open to voting for her?
Yes.
Ok. How can someone say in the same breath that they like Evan McMullin as a conservative candidate with integrity and you like his policies and then turn around and say you would be open to voting for Hillary Clinton, someone who embodies the very antithesis of integrity in every aspect of her public life and who espouses policies that are the polar opposite of McMullin? Either she has no idea what she is talking about or....well scratch that, having no idea what she is talking about is the only answer. Until we get to the next question:
But Hillary has her share of problems too, right?
That to me is where the Christian family is struggling right now, because in terms of character assassination, both of our candidates have some dirt. It has become a matter of which is worse, and it’s a terrible predicament.
That is an evasion worthy of a Clinton. It isn't "character assassination" to point out the myriad well documented examples of unethical and criminal behavior by Mrs. Clinton. I am assuming that Ms. Hatmaker knows the specifics of Mrs. Clinton's "share of problems" but on the other hand someone who is intrigued by Evan McMullin but open to voting for Hillary is clearly not well versed on the issues (which she ironically accuses Donald Trump of also being). Now we get to the biggies.
Politically speaking, do you support gay marriage?
From a civil rights and civil liberties side and from just a human being side, any two adults have the right to choose who they want to love. And they should be afforded the same legal protections as any of us. I would never wish anything less for my gay friends.
From a spiritual perspective, since gay marriage is legal in all 50 states, our communities have plenty of gay couples who, just like the rest of us, need marriage support and parenting help and Christian community. They are either going to find those resources in the church or they are not.
Not only are these our neighbors and friends, but they are brothers and sisters in Christ. They are adopted into the same family as the rest of us, and the church hasn’t treated the LGBT community like family. We have to do better.
So the first paragraph, which answers the actual question she was posed, is kind of silly but not heretical.
The second paragraph is puzzling. Ms. Hatmaker may be unaware of this but something being legal in all 50 states (by virtue of a judicial fiat by the way) doesn't make it OK. The church should be prepared by all means to minister to homosexuals but to minister to them with the Gospel that saves from sin, not affirmation that encourages it.
The third paragraph is the worst of the trio. Someone who embraces and celebrates their sin is by definition not born-again and therefore not a Christian and further not a brother or sister in Christ or part of the family of God. There are people who are struggling with same sex behavior and we should help them as sinners saved by grace but never, ever by denying the reality of sin and the need to repent and turn from that sin. Lest you think this is an aberration, she doubles down on her error:
You mention faithfulness and God. Do you think an LGBT relationship can be holy?
I do. And my views here are tender. This is a very nuanced conversation, and it’s hard to nail down in one sitting. I’ve seen too much pain and rejection at the intersection of the gay community and the church. Every believer that witnesses that much overwhelming sorrow should be tender enough to do some hard work here.
My views here are tender? What does that even mean other than being wishy washy and patting yourself on the back? It really isn't that nuanced of a conversation. Scripture is as clear on the unacceptability and inherent sinfulness of homosexual behavior as it is on any topic. There is no ambiguity or nuance. Homosexual behavior is condemned without qualification or exception. What Ms. Hatmaker is doing is not tender or nuanced or loving. It is being either willfully ignorant of Scripture or more likely she knows what Scripture says and is determined to deny it in favor of capitulating to the culture. There is nothing new or courageous here, it is just the same false teaching that has infected religious America for the last several years.
I agree that every believer should be prepared to do some hard work when it comes to homosexual behavior but blowing along with the winds of the culture isn't hard work. Standing firm in love for the truth even when it costs you public affirmation and perhaps book sales is the hard work. Telling someone who is sinning that God doesn't care is easy, telling them that a holy God cannot abide sin and is by His very nature bound to punish sin is hard work.
What about that other hot-button issue? Where do you stand on abortion?
I’ve always had a pro-life ethic and still do. But my pro-life ethic has infinitely expanded from just simply being anti-abortion. For me, pro-life includes the life of the struggling single mom who decides to have that kid and they’re poor. It means being pro-refugee. It means being pro-Muslim. My pro-life ethic, while still not in favor of abortion and certainly not in favor of late-term abortions, has expanded.
There’s something incredibly disingenuous about a Christian community that screams about abortion, but then refuses to support the very programs that are going to stabilize vulnerable, economically fragile families that decide to keep their kids. Some Christians want the baby born, but then don’t want to help the mama raise that baby. We don’t want to provide the scaffolding for them to thrive and be successful. That, to me, makes no sense at all.
Ms. Hatmaker has a knack for avoiding answers and being intentionally vague. No wonder her books sell so well. After her laundry list of being "pro-refugee" and "pro-Muslim", whatever that means, notice the language she uses. She is "not in favor of abortion" and "certainly not in favor of late-term abortions". Not in favor of? I am not in favor of lots of stuff. When it comes to murdering children in the womb I am not "not in favor" of that, I am disgusted and heart-broken and infuriated by the practice. I am not in favor of subsidizing ethanol, I am 100% opposed to my dying breath to abortion. See the difference there? Ms. Hatmaker's language is designed to assuage the consciences of her allegedly Christian audience while not offending any of her "progressive" pals. Playing word games with the life of children in the balance is disgusting. There is no other way to put it.
The second paragraph is the pretty typical and slanderous charge levied by unbelievers against Christians suggesting that we only care about children when they are in the womb. I would expect better from someone who claims to be a Christian but I am not surprised to see her parrot it back. First, untold millions of dollars are donated by Christians to crisis pregnancy centers that do an incredible work in providing parenting help and material assistance to poor families and especially single moms. Liberals think that volunteering to have the government take money away from other people and throwing it at poor people is compassion but Christians know that actually helping people takes (to use her words) hard work. Even her statement that Christians "scream" about abortion as if it is irrational and crazy to oppose abortion is grotesque. To compound it she dutifully repeats the demonstrably false notion that programs designed to "help" the poor are the only form of compassion for the poor when trillions of dollars and decades of time in the "War on Poverty" has accomplished nothing to reduce poverty and instead have trapped generations in perpetual dependency.
You’re a mother of a multiethnic family. What are your thoughts on Black Lives Matter?
I’m a supporter of Black Lives Matter, and I am deeply embedded in that conversation. I am learning so much from people of color right now, specifically my black mentors and leaders that I’ve sort of put myself under. This was not a topic I even considered 10 years ago.
But now I’ve read devastating books like “The New Jim Crow” by Michelle Alexander. It’s shattering, that piece of work. Brandon and I went down to Montgomery and sat for two days under the leadership of Bryan Stevenson, who wrote “Just Mercy,” and we learned so much from a legal standpoint. This conversation is wrought with tension. But I feel like this is a big part of my task and work, probably forever.
Oh, she is "deeply embedded in that conversation". Right. I would be willing to bet that the actual public leaders of the disingenuously named "Black Lives Matter" movement don't have any idea who she is. At least she can check off the "supports black lives matter" box on her progressive bucket list.
It looks like Rachel Held Evans has some serious competition for the "Most Predictable Guilty White Liberal Religious Woman" title.
You don't have to be a Christian. No one is making you. You are welcome to be whatever you want and accept whatever consequences come from that. But if you are going to claim to be a Christian then you must accept that your feelings or the prevailing cultural winds don't have authority. In being a Christian I submit myself to the authoritative teaching of the Bible and I don't get to amend, subtract or ignore those parts I find inconvenient or that cost me book sales or speaking engagements. The Bible tells me that homosexuality is inherently sinful, without exception. I don't get to hide behind "nuance" and pretend it is otherwise. I don't get to see human life as made in the image of God and then say I am "not in favor" of abortion as if I am expressing my favor or disfavor on a new tax levy for the library. Human beings murdered by other human beings is a crime against humanity and an affront to God. Trying to deflect making that unequivocal statement by dragging unrelated and actually complex issues like immigration policy into the conversation is not nuanced or brave, it is cowardly and intellectually dishonest.
Jen Hatmaker clearly knows a lot about selling books. Kudos to her, I am all in favor of people earning as much as they can. She just as clearly knows nothing about or ignores pretty much everything in Scripture that is mentioned in this interview. I am sure she will get a great deal of affirmation from fellow "progressives" for her "enlightened" and "nuanced" responses and no doubt will piously play the martyr when people call out her error strewn and heretical responses to the interview. For me this interview is nothing more than a bunch of clap-trap that serves an unintentional purpose of reinforcing how important clear, Scripture based thinking is for the church. The next five years are going to see an explosion in this sort of anti-Scriptural nonsense and the church must be willing and able to respond and refute these errors. False progressive pious utterances and empty slogans are fine for political campaigns but they have no place in the battlefield for souls the church fights upon every day.
(see also the satirical send up of Ms. Hatmaker from the Babylon Bee, Jen Hatmaker Takes A Stand For Unclear Stances )
(also see also Matt Walsh responding to Ms. Hatmaker)
Who do you plan to vote for?
My initial thought is vote for whoever is not Donald Trump and can win. It’s interesting, though, to watch Evan McMullin rise up right now as a conservative candidate, and I’m paying attention to that. I like him. I think he’s got a lot of integrity, and I like his policies.
What about Hillary? Would you be open to voting for her?
Yes.
Ok. How can someone say in the same breath that they like Evan McMullin as a conservative candidate with integrity and you like his policies and then turn around and say you would be open to voting for Hillary Clinton, someone who embodies the very antithesis of integrity in every aspect of her public life and who espouses policies that are the polar opposite of McMullin? Either she has no idea what she is talking about or....well scratch that, having no idea what she is talking about is the only answer. Until we get to the next question:
But Hillary has her share of problems too, right?
That to me is where the Christian family is struggling right now, because in terms of character assassination, both of our candidates have some dirt. It has become a matter of which is worse, and it’s a terrible predicament.
That is an evasion worthy of a Clinton. It isn't "character assassination" to point out the myriad well documented examples of unethical and criminal behavior by Mrs. Clinton. I am assuming that Ms. Hatmaker knows the specifics of Mrs. Clinton's "share of problems" but on the other hand someone who is intrigued by Evan McMullin but open to voting for Hillary is clearly not well versed on the issues (which she ironically accuses Donald Trump of also being). Now we get to the biggies.
Politically speaking, do you support gay marriage?
From a civil rights and civil liberties side and from just a human being side, any two adults have the right to choose who they want to love. And they should be afforded the same legal protections as any of us. I would never wish anything less for my gay friends.
From a spiritual perspective, since gay marriage is legal in all 50 states, our communities have plenty of gay couples who, just like the rest of us, need marriage support and parenting help and Christian community. They are either going to find those resources in the church or they are not.
Not only are these our neighbors and friends, but they are brothers and sisters in Christ. They are adopted into the same family as the rest of us, and the church hasn’t treated the LGBT community like family. We have to do better.
So the first paragraph, which answers the actual question she was posed, is kind of silly but not heretical.
The second paragraph is puzzling. Ms. Hatmaker may be unaware of this but something being legal in all 50 states (by virtue of a judicial fiat by the way) doesn't make it OK. The church should be prepared by all means to minister to homosexuals but to minister to them with the Gospel that saves from sin, not affirmation that encourages it.
The third paragraph is the worst of the trio. Someone who embraces and celebrates their sin is by definition not born-again and therefore not a Christian and further not a brother or sister in Christ or part of the family of God. There are people who are struggling with same sex behavior and we should help them as sinners saved by grace but never, ever by denying the reality of sin and the need to repent and turn from that sin. Lest you think this is an aberration, she doubles down on her error:
You mention faithfulness and God. Do you think an LGBT relationship can be holy?
I do. And my views here are tender. This is a very nuanced conversation, and it’s hard to nail down in one sitting. I’ve seen too much pain and rejection at the intersection of the gay community and the church. Every believer that witnesses that much overwhelming sorrow should be tender enough to do some hard work here.
My views here are tender? What does that even mean other than being wishy washy and patting yourself on the back? It really isn't that nuanced of a conversation. Scripture is as clear on the unacceptability and inherent sinfulness of homosexual behavior as it is on any topic. There is no ambiguity or nuance. Homosexual behavior is condemned without qualification or exception. What Ms. Hatmaker is doing is not tender or nuanced or loving. It is being either willfully ignorant of Scripture or more likely she knows what Scripture says and is determined to deny it in favor of capitulating to the culture. There is nothing new or courageous here, it is just the same false teaching that has infected religious America for the last several years.
I agree that every believer should be prepared to do some hard work when it comes to homosexual behavior but blowing along with the winds of the culture isn't hard work. Standing firm in love for the truth even when it costs you public affirmation and perhaps book sales is the hard work. Telling someone who is sinning that God doesn't care is easy, telling them that a holy God cannot abide sin and is by His very nature bound to punish sin is hard work.
What about that other hot-button issue? Where do you stand on abortion?
I’ve always had a pro-life ethic and still do. But my pro-life ethic has infinitely expanded from just simply being anti-abortion. For me, pro-life includes the life of the struggling single mom who decides to have that kid and they’re poor. It means being pro-refugee. It means being pro-Muslim. My pro-life ethic, while still not in favor of abortion and certainly not in favor of late-term abortions, has expanded.
There’s something incredibly disingenuous about a Christian community that screams about abortion, but then refuses to support the very programs that are going to stabilize vulnerable, economically fragile families that decide to keep their kids. Some Christians want the baby born, but then don’t want to help the mama raise that baby. We don’t want to provide the scaffolding for them to thrive and be successful. That, to me, makes no sense at all.
Ms. Hatmaker has a knack for avoiding answers and being intentionally vague. No wonder her books sell so well. After her laundry list of being "pro-refugee" and "pro-Muslim", whatever that means, notice the language she uses. She is "not in favor of abortion" and "certainly not in favor of late-term abortions". Not in favor of? I am not in favor of lots of stuff. When it comes to murdering children in the womb I am not "not in favor" of that, I am disgusted and heart-broken and infuriated by the practice. I am not in favor of subsidizing ethanol, I am 100% opposed to my dying breath to abortion. See the difference there? Ms. Hatmaker's language is designed to assuage the consciences of her allegedly Christian audience while not offending any of her "progressive" pals. Playing word games with the life of children in the balance is disgusting. There is no other way to put it.
The second paragraph is the pretty typical and slanderous charge levied by unbelievers against Christians suggesting that we only care about children when they are in the womb. I would expect better from someone who claims to be a Christian but I am not surprised to see her parrot it back. First, untold millions of dollars are donated by Christians to crisis pregnancy centers that do an incredible work in providing parenting help and material assistance to poor families and especially single moms. Liberals think that volunteering to have the government take money away from other people and throwing it at poor people is compassion but Christians know that actually helping people takes (to use her words) hard work. Even her statement that Christians "scream" about abortion as if it is irrational and crazy to oppose abortion is grotesque. To compound it she dutifully repeats the demonstrably false notion that programs designed to "help" the poor are the only form of compassion for the poor when trillions of dollars and decades of time in the "War on Poverty" has accomplished nothing to reduce poverty and instead have trapped generations in perpetual dependency.
You’re a mother of a multiethnic family. What are your thoughts on Black Lives Matter?
I’m a supporter of Black Lives Matter, and I am deeply embedded in that conversation. I am learning so much from people of color right now, specifically my black mentors and leaders that I’ve sort of put myself under. This was not a topic I even considered 10 years ago.
But now I’ve read devastating books like “The New Jim Crow” by Michelle Alexander. It’s shattering, that piece of work. Brandon and I went down to Montgomery and sat for two days under the leadership of Bryan Stevenson, who wrote “Just Mercy,” and we learned so much from a legal standpoint. This conversation is wrought with tension. But I feel like this is a big part of my task and work, probably forever.
Oh, she is "deeply embedded in that conversation". Right. I would be willing to bet that the actual public leaders of the disingenuously named "Black Lives Matter" movement don't have any idea who she is. At least she can check off the "supports black lives matter" box on her progressive bucket list.
It looks like Rachel Held Evans has some serious competition for the "Most Predictable Guilty White Liberal Religious Woman" title.
You don't have to be a Christian. No one is making you. You are welcome to be whatever you want and accept whatever consequences come from that. But if you are going to claim to be a Christian then you must accept that your feelings or the prevailing cultural winds don't have authority. In being a Christian I submit myself to the authoritative teaching of the Bible and I don't get to amend, subtract or ignore those parts I find inconvenient or that cost me book sales or speaking engagements. The Bible tells me that homosexuality is inherently sinful, without exception. I don't get to hide behind "nuance" and pretend it is otherwise. I don't get to see human life as made in the image of God and then say I am "not in favor" of abortion as if I am expressing my favor or disfavor on a new tax levy for the library. Human beings murdered by other human beings is a crime against humanity and an affront to God. Trying to deflect making that unequivocal statement by dragging unrelated and actually complex issues like immigration policy into the conversation is not nuanced or brave, it is cowardly and intellectually dishonest.
Jen Hatmaker clearly knows a lot about selling books. Kudos to her, I am all in favor of people earning as much as they can. She just as clearly knows nothing about or ignores pretty much everything in Scripture that is mentioned in this interview. I am sure she will get a great deal of affirmation from fellow "progressives" for her "enlightened" and "nuanced" responses and no doubt will piously play the martyr when people call out her error strewn and heretical responses to the interview. For me this interview is nothing more than a bunch of clap-trap that serves an unintentional purpose of reinforcing how important clear, Scripture based thinking is for the church. The next five years are going to see an explosion in this sort of anti-Scriptural nonsense and the church must be willing and able to respond and refute these errors. False progressive pious utterances and empty slogans are fine for political campaigns but they have no place in the battlefield for souls the church fights upon every day.
(see also the satirical send up of Ms. Hatmaker from the Babylon Bee, Jen Hatmaker Takes A Stand For Unclear Stances )
(also see also Matt Walsh responding to Ms. Hatmaker)
Sunday, October 23, 2016
Another Week, Another Wedding
Things have been quiet around here for a couple of weeks. By "here" I mean this blog because real life has been anything but quiet. The last few weeks have been crazy with helping an Amish family prepare for their third wedding in 13 months and that has kept me off line. With the election only weeks away I have lots to talk about but I simply haven't had time to write.
The worst kept secret of this election is that a lot of "Republicans" are secretly or not-so-secretly pulling for Hillary Clinton because what they care about is not smaller government or the sanctity of life or the national debt but rather maintaining the status quo where the rich elites in D.C. stay rich and powerful, living off the the labor of the saps in the rest of the country who work for a living.
Anyway here are a couple of pictures from the (very rainy) wedding.
The worst kept secret of this election is that a lot of "Republicans" are secretly or not-so-secretly pulling for Hillary Clinton because what they care about is not smaller government or the sanctity of life or the national debt but rather maintaining the status quo where the rich elites in D.C. stay rich and powerful, living off the the labor of the saps in the rest of the country who work for a living.
Anyway here are a couple of pictures from the (very rainy) wedding.
Sunday, October 09, 2016
Hypocrisy Goes Both Ways
Here's a question. If Donald Trump, who based on most of his positions that he didn't change for this election cycle could plausibly do so, had run for President as a Democrat and was the current nominee against someone like Indiana's own "Vanilla Ice" Mike Pence, would the media be quite so incensed over this antics past and present? Not hardly.
It is in vogue to point the finger of blame at those who support Trump and blame them for this shameful state of affairs. That is quite appropriate. The problem is that I think those same self-righteous people on the Left who are clucking the loudest about Trump have a substantial percent of the blame for creating the sort of environment where a man can be in a feasible position even today to be President of the United States and yet harbor this sort of juvenile attitude about women, sexuality and personal standards of behavior.
Gee, maybe if you constantly inundate people with sexually charged images where homosexuality and cross-dressing, long rightly understood as mental illnesses, and casual and often meaningless and crude or even borderline violent sexual behavior is celebrated as liberating they might eventually start to live those behaviors out in real life. Movies depict sexual violence from overt rape to quasi-sexual assault to sexual degradation of woman being celebrated as "romantic". As others have pointed out, someone bought those 125 million copies of Fifty Shades of Grey and someone paid over half a billion in ticket revenue to watch the movie version where a rich, powerful guy sexually abuses a young, vulnerable woman (based on the synopsis from Wikipedia, I have never read the book or watched the film). In a culture where men are inundated with sexual images and women are force fed the lie that being promiscuous, even when they dislike it and are ashamed of it, is somehow liberating, it is inevitable that people like Donald Trump take advantage of that behavior. After all, using his power and position to seduce at least one White House intern for sex who knows how many times in the White House and countless others in his political career didn't lower the Left's fawning esteem of Bill Clinton, it seems to have raised his standing among "feminists" and others. Heck, even lying under oath about it, being suspended from practicing law and impeached by the House of Representatives was brushed off as "just sex" even though what got him impeached was not having sex with a 22 year old intern but lying about it under oath. Being a sexual predator gets Clinton invites to speak to august bodies all over the world but tapes of Donald Trump talking about the same sort of behavior has the Left fanning themselves and grasping for the smelling salts in faux outrage. Being a sexual predator is OK for me but not for thee? Please.
While I am at it, how about the fact that tens of millions of Americans will still vote for Trump because the notion of voting for Hillary Clinton is just that revolting. There is more to it than just Hillary being nothing less than evil. An awful lot of people in this country, men especially and the heterosexual, white men even more so, have been constantly pummeled by the cultural opinion deciders, those who by virtue of their position in deciding what is acceptable entertainment and eventually what is an acceptable opinion think themselves better than the rest of us. They are told that being masculine is "toxic" and contributes to the false narrative of a "rape culture". They are told they are to blame for racism no matter what they do. If you are not 100% on board with whatever perversion and deviance the cultural leaders tell you to be, you are not just agreeing to disagree or wrong, you are a cultural enemy who must be silenced and punished. You can only crap on millions of people who just want to live their lives and raise their families without being constantly scolded for being terrible people for so long. Hillary Clinton personifies the forces that are degrading this country. Donald Trump is nothing more than a well coiffed middle finger aimed right at the heart of those who think they are better than the rest of us.
When you intentionally create a toxic culture, you should expect toxic people to thrive in that environment.
It is in vogue to point the finger of blame at those who support Trump and blame them for this shameful state of affairs. That is quite appropriate. The problem is that I think those same self-righteous people on the Left who are clucking the loudest about Trump have a substantial percent of the blame for creating the sort of environment where a man can be in a feasible position even today to be President of the United States and yet harbor this sort of juvenile attitude about women, sexuality and personal standards of behavior.
Gee, maybe if you constantly inundate people with sexually charged images where homosexuality and cross-dressing, long rightly understood as mental illnesses, and casual and often meaningless and crude or even borderline violent sexual behavior is celebrated as liberating they might eventually start to live those behaviors out in real life. Movies depict sexual violence from overt rape to quasi-sexual assault to sexual degradation of woman being celebrated as "romantic". As others have pointed out, someone bought those 125 million copies of Fifty Shades of Grey and someone paid over half a billion in ticket revenue to watch the movie version where a rich, powerful guy sexually abuses a young, vulnerable woman (based on the synopsis from Wikipedia, I have never read the book or watched the film). In a culture where men are inundated with sexual images and women are force fed the lie that being promiscuous, even when they dislike it and are ashamed of it, is somehow liberating, it is inevitable that people like Donald Trump take advantage of that behavior. After all, using his power and position to seduce at least one White House intern for sex who knows how many times in the White House and countless others in his political career didn't lower the Left's fawning esteem of Bill Clinton, it seems to have raised his standing among "feminists" and others. Heck, even lying under oath about it, being suspended from practicing law and impeached by the House of Representatives was brushed off as "just sex" even though what got him impeached was not having sex with a 22 year old intern but lying about it under oath. Being a sexual predator gets Clinton invites to speak to august bodies all over the world but tapes of Donald Trump talking about the same sort of behavior has the Left fanning themselves and grasping for the smelling salts in faux outrage. Being a sexual predator is OK for me but not for thee? Please.
While I am at it, how about the fact that tens of millions of Americans will still vote for Trump because the notion of voting for Hillary Clinton is just that revolting. There is more to it than just Hillary being nothing less than evil. An awful lot of people in this country, men especially and the heterosexual, white men even more so, have been constantly pummeled by the cultural opinion deciders, those who by virtue of their position in deciding what is acceptable entertainment and eventually what is an acceptable opinion think themselves better than the rest of us. They are told that being masculine is "toxic" and contributes to the false narrative of a "rape culture". They are told they are to blame for racism no matter what they do. If you are not 100% on board with whatever perversion and deviance the cultural leaders tell you to be, you are not just agreeing to disagree or wrong, you are a cultural enemy who must be silenced and punished. You can only crap on millions of people who just want to live their lives and raise their families without being constantly scolded for being terrible people for so long. Hillary Clinton personifies the forces that are degrading this country. Donald Trump is nothing more than a well coiffed middle finger aimed right at the heart of those who think they are better than the rest of us.
When you intentionally create a toxic culture, you should expect toxic people to thrive in that environment.
The False Dichotomy: American Evangelical Style
He took the candidate that they had elected and burned it with fire
and ground it to powder and scattered it on the water and made the people of Israel drink
it. And Moses said to Aaron, "What did this people do to you that you have
brought such a great sin upon them?" And Aaron said, "Let not the
anger of my lord burn hot. You know the people, that they are set on evil. For
they said to me, 'Find us a Presidential candidate who can beat Hillary. As for
this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt
Exodus 32:20-24, you know, if the Israelite's were American
evangelicals
The evangelical ship in this country has been sinking for a long time, which is fine because it has mostly been sailing in circles for decades and inviting anyone who wants on board to join our little club. This weekend the sinking ship got torpedoed, set on fire and crushed about the mid-ship by the kraken. Many people are finally manning the lifeboats and fleeing the S.S. Donald Trump Is Bad But Not As Bad As Hillary but it is way too late. Nevertheless many others are shouting that all is well.
So there is a rather desperate narrative going around this weekend from some people. Here it goes.
There are only two choices Christians have:
One, vote for Donald Trump to preserve religious liberty, save the Supreme Court and preserve America itself.
Two, do nothing.
Ah, I see.
We are nearly two thousand years from the Resurrection.
We are almost 500 years from the start of the Reformation.
In most of that time the church has had very little civic control and even less religious liberty. In fact for much of the first 1500 years of Christian history the state and a false religion actively stomped out anyone who actually expressed the Gospel.
Did that mean that the church "did nothing"? That it stood silently by and watched the world turn mutely? Does the church have no voice, does the church have no witness if we don't have political influence? Does "Be ye not unequally yoked..." only apply to Baptist parents who have a daughter dating a Methodist boy?
If you are so blinded that you cannot imagine how the church can survive and be a prophetic witness to the world without putting our support behind a politician, that is your problem, not mine. It is frankly ignorant of the doctrine of sin, it is tragically ignorant of the reality of human nature and woefully ignorant of Christian history.
The church didn't start in 1776. The public Gospel witness did not first occur when the Bill of Rights was ratified. For those who think that we cannot survive unless the Constitution stays intact and that can only happen if Trump is elected I would first point to something James White wrote on Facebook:
6. Stop fantasizing about the SCOTUS. One word: Obergefell, and that WITH Scalia. That ship has sailed, it is over the horizon. See point 3. Further, the doe-eyed optimism of my fellow Christians that a man like DJT, who has no earthly concept of what “trustworthiness” means, and has lived his life violating covenants and promises (ask his wives and the married women he seduced, proudly), would actually go to the mat to push through even semi-meaningful judicial nominees is further evidence that bearing the name “Christian” does not necessarily endow you with common sense.
Yes to that. Second, I would point out that the Constitution of the United States has been a dead, empty series of words since early in the 20th century and isn't coming back. This nation has gone deep into the desert with no water. It isn't going to survive, at least not in a recognizable sense. We live in a functional totalitarian state, a Bureautocracy controlled by un-elected bureaucrats, self-appointed political elites, the revolving door of big business/big government and an out of control judiciary.
So. What is the church going to do? Continue to support increasingly disgusting people in the certain vain hope that eventually we will stop getting used like whores? Will we bemoan our lack of political power and close up shop?
I don't know about the rest of the church but I do know about me. I am not going to going into mourning if Donald Trump doesn't "win". I am going to keep speaking out, I am going to keep doing what I can to carry out the mission God gave to His Church, not the United States, not the Republican Party, namely the carrying forth of the message of the Kingdom and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I will do so if it costs me dearly, if it means being shunned by the world, if it means losing jobs, if it means imprisonment, if it means death.
There are two certainties for November. Donald Trump is probably not going to win. Even if he does things are not going to change. Faced with that harsh reality, what are we going to do? What are you going to do?
Saturday, October 08, 2016
Our Romans 13 Election?
I like to think that but I know better.
"Our" candidates are nothing but a reflection of us. For the first time we can't pretend we were fooled. We knew what we were getting. A vulgar blowhard who seems to be running for President as a joke and a power mad harpy who will do anything to achieve her own mad personal quest for power.
Maybe for once we can start to understand what Paul was talking about. Paul who wrote of Caesar as someone the church should not fear but pray for. Caesar was outside of the Kingdom. The church is the Kingdom. Because God is God, we have nothing to fear from Caesar. If Paul cold be imprisoned by Caesar and still pray for the likes of Nero and Caligula what we are worried about? Our loss of "religious liberty"? The church is told to expect persecution and indeed has always thrived in the face of persecution. Do we fear that we will get the wrong Supreme Court justices? "For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." That is true of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. It is also true for Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy.
Maybe, just maybe we can rely on the power of God, the strength of weakness that is the true might of the believer. Instead of trying to take over and become Caesar we can stand as a clear, contrast to Caesar.
We should strive to do good to everyone and especially the household of faith but we should do it without compromising our calling and becoming unequally yoked with Caesar. In this election we have no real choice that honors God. We can vote for the man who speaks of women like they are all whores. We can vote for a woman who promises to put our infanticide machine on overdrive and is as dishonest as any human being has ever been. We can vote for "principled" candidates who won't win or a long shot who seems more and more stoned as the campaign stumbles tortuously to it's culmination. Or we can turn our focus, our time, talent and treasure to the tasks that God has actually called us to, that have eternal significance.
Our choice has never been more stark. Not a choice between Republican or Democrat, not between liberal or conservative. No, our choice is the power of the world or the power of God and it has never been more clear. Let's not screw this up. The world we are called to serve and love, even people who are hell bound like Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, is watching. More importantly so is our Savior.
Maybe, just maybe we can rely on the power of God, the strength of weakness that is the true might of the believer. Instead of trying to take over and become Caesar we can stand as a clear, contrast to Caesar.
We should strive to do good to everyone and especially the household of faith but we should do it without compromising our calling and becoming unequally yoked with Caesar. In this election we have no real choice that honors God. We can vote for the man who speaks of women like they are all whores. We can vote for a woman who promises to put our infanticide machine on overdrive and is as dishonest as any human being has ever been. We can vote for "principled" candidates who won't win or a long shot who seems more and more stoned as the campaign stumbles tortuously to it's culmination. Or we can turn our focus, our time, talent and treasure to the tasks that God has actually called us to, that have eternal significance.
Our choice has never been more stark. Not a choice between Republican or Democrat, not between liberal or conservative. No, our choice is the power of the world or the power of God and it has never been more clear. Let's not screw this up. The world we are called to serve and love, even people who are hell bound like Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, is watching. More importantly so is our Savior.
Friday, October 07, 2016
Helping Haiti
Social media is awash in stories from the devastation wrought by Hurricane Matthew. In America the impact will be severe in terms of property damage and some loss of life. In Haiti where there is virtually no functioning infrastructure, the results are devastating. As of right now the death toll stands at 800 and I am sadly certain that this is the proverbial tip of the iceberg.
Some might think that Americans should worry about our American neighbors in need and not worry about people in a foreign country. To that I respond that while I understand the sentiment, it is without question that the recovery in America for the average person is far swifter than Haiti. Should I lose all of my food and clothing to a hurricane I could simply drive to the nearest Wal-Mart and replenish, although that would require me to wear super tacky polyester "fashion" clothing which is only marginally better than being naked covered in honey sitting on a fire-ant nest. Haiti simply has no infrastructure, no emergency services, no way for their government to magically create "money" to pay for recuperation. Haiti, although I have only been there once, has a special place in my heart (see my post Why Haiti?) and many, many of my brothers and sisters in Christ are serving our Lord in that so often tragic land.
If you are looking for a way to financially help the people of Haiti, my recommendation is go small and go local. Give to smaller, hopefully more accountable organizations with minimal overhead and who understand the country rather than some giant group that eats up contributions just to raise more money. Two groups are on my rather short list.
The Hope Community Project formerly was the Haiti Orphan Project but after some difficult soul searching now focuses on orphan prevention. That is a less sexy sounding mission statement than running an orphanage in a desperately poor country but it is the right way to go. Helping Haitians to maintain and strengthen communities and families is their mission:
We exist to facilitate the development of healthy communities through partnerships with Haitian churches and organizations to encourage sustainable physical, spiritual and economic health; we desire to communicate Christ-centered compassion as well as respect for the dignity and resources of the Haitian people.
They are good people and I know some of them personally and can vouch for the work they do and the Christ-centered approach they take.
Another group I am familiar with including some staff personally is Christian Aid Ministries. In spite of the rather generic name they are a group mostly made up of conservative Anabaptists and have a strong presence in Haiti. CAM also has the distinction of using more than 97.5% of their funds for direct aid and less than 3% on fund raising and overhead.
There are other groups of course but I encourage you to really get to know the groups you donate to. Too many contributions given in haste are ill spent and the needs are too great around the world to blow your money paying for someone to sit in a cubicle in Dallas raising funds to pay their own salary.
Some might think that Americans should worry about our American neighbors in need and not worry about people in a foreign country. To that I respond that while I understand the sentiment, it is without question that the recovery in America for the average person is far swifter than Haiti. Should I lose all of my food and clothing to a hurricane I could simply drive to the nearest Wal-Mart and replenish, although that would require me to wear super tacky polyester "fashion" clothing which is only marginally better than being naked covered in honey sitting on a fire-ant nest. Haiti simply has no infrastructure, no emergency services, no way for their government to magically create "money" to pay for recuperation. Haiti, although I have only been there once, has a special place in my heart (see my post Why Haiti?) and many, many of my brothers and sisters in Christ are serving our Lord in that so often tragic land.
If you are looking for a way to financially help the people of Haiti, my recommendation is go small and go local. Give to smaller, hopefully more accountable organizations with minimal overhead and who understand the country rather than some giant group that eats up contributions just to raise more money. Two groups are on my rather short list.
The Hope Community Project formerly was the Haiti Orphan Project but after some difficult soul searching now focuses on orphan prevention. That is a less sexy sounding mission statement than running an orphanage in a desperately poor country but it is the right way to go. Helping Haitians to maintain and strengthen communities and families is their mission:
We exist to facilitate the development of healthy communities through partnerships with Haitian churches and organizations to encourage sustainable physical, spiritual and economic health; we desire to communicate Christ-centered compassion as well as respect for the dignity and resources of the Haitian people.
They are good people and I know some of them personally and can vouch for the work they do and the Christ-centered approach they take.
Another group I am familiar with including some staff personally is Christian Aid Ministries. In spite of the rather generic name they are a group mostly made up of conservative Anabaptists and have a strong presence in Haiti. CAM also has the distinction of using more than 97.5% of their funds for direct aid and less than 3% on fund raising and overhead.
There are other groups of course but I encourage you to really get to know the groups you donate to. Too many contributions given in haste are ill spent and the needs are too great around the world to blow your money paying for someone to sit in a cubicle in Dallas raising funds to pay their own salary.
Saturday, October 01, 2016
Where Did My Links List Go?
For some reason my links list on the sidebar disappeared. Any ideas why that happened? I can recreate it but it is a hassle.
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
Real Life Mirrors Good Will Hunting
So our neighbors to the north in Michigan at the academic and athletic powerhouse University of Michigan have decided that students can choose whatever personal pronoun they like to be addressed as on any given day, depending on their mood or something. Anyway the decision comes from an august body at the U of M:
The move is the result of a Pronoun Committee of staff and faculty that met for the past year. The committee was in response to a student petition.
When a "university" invests money, time and authority of any kind in a "Pronoun Committee", it makes a complete farce out of the entire idea of education. Or as Will Hunting says in one of my favorite movie scenes of all time, starting at 3:25 (pardon the language)
See, the sad thing about a guy like you is, in 50 years you're gonna start doin' some thinkin' on your own and you're going to come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life: one, don't do that, and two, you dropped 150 grand on a (f''ing) education you could have got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library!
Yeah, pretty much that. It is my contention, and one that grows more certain by the day, that unless you are pursuing some sort of specific, vocationally required education that you can only get in a university setting (nursing, accounting, etc.), then the very last place you should go in order to educate yourself is a university. Universities by and large are mostly places where young "adults" are force-fed nonsense and leftist propaganda, meaning that they are woefully unprepared for life outside of the "safe spaces" of a university. While colleges have always been far-left bastions, at least when I was in school you could hold to a dissenting opinion. Now you are required to think only a certain way, meaning that universities are doing the precise opposite of educating.
In a world where information is available to anyone at any time for free at the drop of a hat, the very reason for universities is rapidly evaporating. Do yourself and your kids a favor, teach them to love to read and have an inquisitive mind and skip the $100,000 in debt.
The move is the result of a Pronoun Committee of staff and faculty that met for the past year. The committee was in response to a student petition.
When a "university" invests money, time and authority of any kind in a "Pronoun Committee", it makes a complete farce out of the entire idea of education. Or as Will Hunting says in one of my favorite movie scenes of all time, starting at 3:25 (pardon the language)
See, the sad thing about a guy like you is, in 50 years you're gonna start doin' some thinkin' on your own and you're going to come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life: one, don't do that, and two, you dropped 150 grand on a (f''ing) education you could have got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library!
Yeah, pretty much that. It is my contention, and one that grows more certain by the day, that unless you are pursuing some sort of specific, vocationally required education that you can only get in a university setting (nursing, accounting, etc.), then the very last place you should go in order to educate yourself is a university. Universities by and large are mostly places where young "adults" are force-fed nonsense and leftist propaganda, meaning that they are woefully unprepared for life outside of the "safe spaces" of a university. While colleges have always been far-left bastions, at least when I was in school you could hold to a dissenting opinion. Now you are required to think only a certain way, meaning that universities are doing the precise opposite of educating.
In a world where information is available to anyone at any time for free at the drop of a hat, the very reason for universities is rapidly evaporating. Do yourself and your kids a favor, teach them to love to read and have an inquisitive mind and skip the $100,000 in debt.
Sunday, September 25, 2016
The Wells Fargo Debacle Goes Way Beyond One Bank
I rarely talk about my jobs, past or present. I am pretty sure no one cares what I used to do for a living and while I had some casual friends for the most part the memories are pretty unpleasant. Still, as the media coverage of the unethical behavior at Wells Fargo continues unabated I am reminded of my life as a bank manager in the retail banking world that most people are familiar with. I spent about four years working as a bank manager for two banks, the one a massive multi-national bank and one a super-regional bank familiar to people who live where I have and do. The public relations nightmare that is hammering Wells Fargo is a much bigger problem than just malfeasance at one bank.
I like to think that we didn't do that sort of stuff in my
branches but I am pretty sure it was going on. I hated working in retail
banking and I am well rid of it. I never felt in any other job that what I was
doing was immoral but in retail banking I did. I felt good when we hit our
sales goals but it slowly ate away at me. When I quit and went back into retirement plan services, I took a printout of my sales goals and whenever I got irritated about my new job I would open my desk and look at those ridiculous sales goals and it made me feel better.
If you give people an incentive to do the wrong thing, more often than not that is what they will do. If you incentive women to get knocked up and not get married, that is what they will do. If you give guys an incentive to not work because getting a job would mean less take home cash, they will play video games instead. If you give guys in suits an incentive to do the wrong thing and punish them for doing the right thing, guess what most of them will do? People who refuse will get fired and people who do what they are told to will get promoted and showered with praise and money.
Whoever you are, you need to check and see what is really going on with your financial picture. Do you have bank accounts you don't use? Credit cards that you don't remember getting, especially the ones from stores? Are you paying a ton of money in fees for "expert investment advice" from someone you never hear from? Check your credit report, look at your bank statement. Make sure you know where any fees are going and what you get for them. Don't expect people with little or no incentive to do so to watch your back. Most of all, don't think "I don't bank at Wells Fargo so this hasn't happened to me." You might be surprised.
Every time is read more about this, I think "Yup, that
is how it worked". The only thing is, I didn't work for Wells Fargo,
instead I managed branches for two other huge banks. The incentive structure at both banks worked a lot of Wells. Bankers, the "personal bankers" rather than the bank managers, the workers who opened most accounts, are heavily incentive driven and they are hounded incessantly for more and more. More checking accounts. More loans. More credit cards. More investment revenue. The pressure was so intense that the really big bank I worked for had a conference call for bank managers only and one of the speakers casually said that the life expectancy of a personal bankers was about 18 months. They bring them in, dangle big rewards in front of them and then ride them into the ground. While the public statements are all about customer service and "doing what is right for the customer", the reality is that the incentive programs for bankers and also for managers often was driving them to do things that hit numbers but were not in the best interest of customers or the bank. Here is an example from the Wall Street Journal:
" In Tucson ,
Ariz.
The customers were told in phone calls that Wells Fargo
planned to send them a new credit card as a “thank you” for their business. If
a customer didn’t want the card, he was told to cut the card when it arrived in
the mail, according to the former banker.
She says those customers weren’t told that issuing each new
card required a credit check, which can lower a person’s credit score."
Yeah, we were told to do that. My people were supposed to call these customers from lists, rapidly explain that they were getting a new "credit line" for overdraft protection and hang up. As long as the customer didn't actively refuse the card, they got a new one in about a week and the banker got credit for a "sale". The thing is, even if people never used the card or home equity line of credit or checking account, it didn't matter. You still got paid.
" Former branch manager Rasheeda Kamar says her Wells
Fargo office in New Milford ,
N.J.
Ms. Kamar says laggards were threatened with termination and
sometimes criticized in conference calls. In February 2011, she wrote to Mr.
Stumpf in an email: “For the most part funds are moved to new accounts to
‘show’ growth when in actuality there is no net gain to the company’s deposit
base.” She says she got no reply."
And that. At one bank, if your branch didn't hit it's sales goal the
prior day, and most of us rarely did, we had to come in for an early morning,
way before the branch opened, "sales call" to be publicly called
out and we had to come up with some ludicrous plan to sell more checking
accounts and credit cards that day. This is in a town with less than 6,000 people and a
dozen banks, including two branches of the same bank! It would not be unusual
for every manager in the district to be on the call and the "plans"
never did much to change the results so it basically was a punishment. Hit your
numbers or you have to get up super early the next day. It was great when you hit your numbers and got to skip the call so you could be smug for a day.
I always believed that great customer service would lead to
more sales and it often did, not to mention it retained money, but no one cared
about that. If you opened 30 checking accounts in a week with $100 each but
closed 40 with $1000 each, you got praised for all of the "new"
accounts you opened, especially for younger customers who were more likely to
overdraw their accounts. Like clockwork you could check your overdraft list on
Monday and see lots of younger customers with literally hundreds of dollars in
overdraft fees from the weekend. We never reversed those fees even though it was simple to do so because that is a huge source of revenue. Banks used to, and I think this has changed, pay items biggest to smallest so if you had five charges and the money for four of them, they would still run the biggest one first, overdrawing your account and then the next four would also be overdrawn and you would get 5 overdrafts fees instead of 1. Plus they charged extra for each day you were overdrawn meaning people without the money could lose almost an entire paycheck at a low wage job in fees before their next paycheck came in.
If you give people an incentive to do the wrong thing, more often than not that is what they will do. If you incentive women to get knocked up and not get married, that is what they will do. If you give guys an incentive to not work because getting a job would mean less take home cash, they will play video games instead. If you give guys in suits an incentive to do the wrong thing and punish them for doing the right thing, guess what most of them will do? People who refuse will get fired and people who do what they are told to will get promoted and showered with praise and money.
Whoever you are, you need to check and see what is really going on with your financial picture. Do you have bank accounts you don't use? Credit cards that you don't remember getting, especially the ones from stores? Are you paying a ton of money in fees for "expert investment advice" from someone you never hear from? Check your credit report, look at your bank statement. Make sure you know where any fees are going and what you get for them. Don't expect people with little or no incentive to do so to watch your back. Most of all, don't think "I don't bank at Wells Fargo so this hasn't happened to me." You might be surprised.
Friday, September 23, 2016
Like Hillbilly Elegy But With Indians
This promises to be another crystal clear example of the government claiming to be trying to help people while engaging in policies that make things worse. There are so many examples of the government coming to "help" a people group and just making it worse while throwing wheelbarrows of tax-payer money into the wind. As bad as you think some groups have it, the Indians have it worse and it is showing no signs of getting better.
It is not a super long book so I should be able to knock it out in short order and provide a more complete review but if you have this book at your local library it is worth your time to pick it up.
Sometimes The Simple Answer Is The Correct Answer
If there is anything "church experts" like to talk about these days it is the loss of Millennials from "church", where "church" means attendance and activity at religious services. Since they are the up and coming generation of adults it is causing something of a panic among church demographers because this generation is desperately needed to replace the older, faithful "tithe" payers that keep many local churches solvent.
One factor that keeps cropping up as a reason for the mass exodus of Millennials is that the church is too political. I agree that often we seem to conflate conservative politics with the Kingdom and to a lesser extent progressives do the same thing, they just don't have many people left. But is that why Millennials are not attending church? I don't think so, at least not primarily. While a lot of people think so, like this tweet:
Churches in America have been full unbelievers for decades. Being a church-goer was a sign of respectability. A good church going man is someone you can trust to do business with. A girl from a church going family was a respectable choice for a wife. Families that didn't go to church had something wrong with them. In other words, there was a social cost to not attending church and a social benefit for attending church. If you were an insurance salesman or a stock broker, being in church made you seem more trustworthy plus it gave you a bunch of people you could guilt into considering your services. Church for many people was not much different from the Rotary or a bowling league.
Today? That social cost/benefit is evaporating. In some places (the northeast, the coastal West, most big cities, colleges, etc) it is completely gone and the opposite is now true. Being religious makes you an outcast and probably a terrible person. Even in the Bible-belt and the MidWest the social need to be in church on Sunday is about gone. That, more than any other reason, is why they are leaving.
In 2016 being social is very different from being social in the 1970's. Today people are social online. They think that they don't actually need to be in the same room (or state or country...) as someone else to be social. They call it "social media" after all. People who crave attention don't need to go anywhere to get it, they just need to have lots of "friends" on Facebook or followers on Twitter. Heck, even being an internet troll gets you some interaction without leaving the house. So getting up on Sunday morning, getting dressed at least in clean clothes and going somewhere to be with people that are mostly sitting mutely for an hour before scampering out to the parking lot doesn't hold much appeal. You can stay home in your pajamas and surf social media and get your socialization fix.
As an aside, it also is pretty common that the most politically active people in the church are often also the most active in the life of the body. People who are passionate and highly committed in one area of life seem to be the same way in other areas. I don't think that means we should encourage people to be more politically minded but it also means that people don't have to choose between being highly faithful and politically engaged.
So what that means is something I have been saying for a long time. You don't need to commission a study and do surveys to figure out why Millennials are leaving "the church". They were never part of the church to begin with and they no longer see any need to be obliged to show up on Sunday to sing songs and listen to messages about a God they never believed in. Aside from a chance to be social, and even that is mostly gone as an incentive, what is there in a church service that would appeal to an unbeliever? Not much so we should stop trying to tailor our gatherings to appeal to people who aren't going to come anyway unless they are acted upon by the Holy Spirit.
So if we shouldn't fret so much about the Millennials leaving, what then should we concentrate on? That is the topic for an upcoming post on what Christians are actually looking for and it isn't what many people think.
One factor that keeps cropping up as a reason for the mass exodus of Millennials is that the church is too political. I agree that often we seem to conflate conservative politics with the Kingdom and to a lesser extent progressives do the same thing, they just don't have many people left. But is that why Millennials are not attending church? I don't think so, at least not primarily. While a lot of people think so, like this tweet:
...I actually think the answer is a lot simpler. Most Millennials are unbelievers (so are Gen Xers, Greatest Generation, Baby Boomers, etc.).Pastor, generally, if you're posting partisan political pieces online, then I can tell you why Millennials aren't coming to your church.— Shane Blackshear (@beardonabike) September 22, 2016
Churches in America have been full unbelievers for decades. Being a church-goer was a sign of respectability. A good church going man is someone you can trust to do business with. A girl from a church going family was a respectable choice for a wife. Families that didn't go to church had something wrong with them. In other words, there was a social cost to not attending church and a social benefit for attending church. If you were an insurance salesman or a stock broker, being in church made you seem more trustworthy plus it gave you a bunch of people you could guilt into considering your services. Church for many people was not much different from the Rotary or a bowling league.
Today? That social cost/benefit is evaporating. In some places (the northeast, the coastal West, most big cities, colleges, etc) it is completely gone and the opposite is now true. Being religious makes you an outcast and probably a terrible person. Even in the Bible-belt and the MidWest the social need to be in church on Sunday is about gone. That, more than any other reason, is why they are leaving.
In 2016 being social is very different from being social in the 1970's. Today people are social online. They think that they don't actually need to be in the same room (or state or country...) as someone else to be social. They call it "social media" after all. People who crave attention don't need to go anywhere to get it, they just need to have lots of "friends" on Facebook or followers on Twitter. Heck, even being an internet troll gets you some interaction without leaving the house. So getting up on Sunday morning, getting dressed at least in clean clothes and going somewhere to be with people that are mostly sitting mutely for an hour before scampering out to the parking lot doesn't hold much appeal. You can stay home in your pajamas and surf social media and get your socialization fix.
As an aside, it also is pretty common that the most politically active people in the church are often also the most active in the life of the body. People who are passionate and highly committed in one area of life seem to be the same way in other areas. I don't think that means we should encourage people to be more politically minded but it also means that people don't have to choose between being highly faithful and politically engaged.
So what that means is something I have been saying for a long time. You don't need to commission a study and do surveys to figure out why Millennials are leaving "the church". They were never part of the church to begin with and they no longer see any need to be obliged to show up on Sunday to sing songs and listen to messages about a God they never believed in. Aside from a chance to be social, and even that is mostly gone as an incentive, what is there in a church service that would appeal to an unbeliever? Not much so we should stop trying to tailor our gatherings to appeal to people who aren't going to come anyway unless they are acted upon by the Holy Spirit.
So if we shouldn't fret so much about the Millennials leaving, what then should we concentrate on? That is the topic for an upcoming post on what Christians are actually looking for and it isn't what many people think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)